I.

II.

Title:

PNB vs. Se
G.R. No. 119231 April 18, 1996

Doctrine
Sec.27.Whatclaimsareincludedinthewarehousemanslien.Subjecttotheprovisions
ofsectionthirty,awarehousemanshallhavelienongoodsdepositedorontheproceeds
thereofinhishands,foralllawfulchargesforstorageandpreservationofthegoods;also
for all lawful claims for money advanced, interest, insurance, transportation, labor,
weighingcooperingandotherchargesandexpensesinrelationtosuchgoods;alsoforall
reasonablechargesandexpensesfornotice,andadvertisementofsale,andforsaleofthe
goodswheredefaulthasbeenmadeinsatisfyingthewarehousemanslien.
Sec.31.Warehousemanneednotdeliveruntillienissatisfied.Awarehousemanhavinga
lienvalidagainstthepersondemandingthegoodsmayrefusetodeliverthegoodstohim
untilthelienissatisfied.

III.

Facts

Noahs Ark issued several warehouse receipts covering sugar stocks deposited by
Rosa Sy of RNS Merchandising and those deposited by Teresita of St. Therese. The
warehouse receipts (quedans) were negotiated and endorsed to Ramos and Zoleta
who used the quedans as security for two loan agreements with PNB for P15.6M and
P23.5M.

Ramos and Zoleta failed to pay their loan hence PNB demanded from Noahs Ark the
delivery of the sugar stocks covered by the warehouse receipts but Noahs Ark
refused alleging ownership over it.

PNB to RTC: Complaint for Specific Performance with Application for Preliminary
Attachment v. Noahs Ark.

RTC: Denied Prelim. Attachment; Motion for Recon denied.

Noahs Ark contend that Teresita and Rosa failed to pay the sugar stocks covered by
the quedans since the checks issued by them were dishonored by reason of payment
stopped and drawn v. insufficient funds hence they did not acquire ownership over
the sugar stocks.

PNB to RTC: Motion for Summary Judgment

RTC: Denied. PNB to CA, Petition for Certiorari.

CA: RTC orders set aside, ordered the RTC to issue summary judgment in favor of
PNB.

RTC: Dismissed PNBs complaint. PNB then appealed to SC.

SC: RTC decision set aside. Noahs Ark to deliver sugar stocks to PNB.

Noahs Ark to SC, Motion for Clarification of Judgment. SC: Denied.

Noahs Ark to RTC, Omnibus motion to defer proceedings until their claim for lien is
heard. PNB to RTC, Issuance of Writ of Execution.

IV.
V.

RTC: Granted Noahs Ark omnibus motion and denying PNBs writ of execution.

Hence, the present petition.

Issues
(1) Whether PNB is subject to pay the warehousemans lien. (YES)
Held
(1) Noahs Ark is a warehouseman, which was obliged to deliver the sugar stocks covered
by the WRs pledged by Zoleta and Ramos to PNB pursuant to R.A. 2137.
PNB is legally bound to stand by the express terms and conditions on the face of the
Warehouse Receipts as to the payment of storage fees. Even in the absence of such a
provision, law and equity dictate the payment of the warehouseman s lien pursuant to
Sections 27 and 31 of the Warehouse Receipts Law (R.A. 2137):
Sec.27.Whatclaimsareincludedinthewarehousemanslien.Subjecttotheprovisions
ofsectionthirty,awarehousemanshallhavelienongoodsdepositedorontheproceeds
thereofinhishands,foralllawfulchargesforstorageandpreservationofthegoods;also
for all lawful claims for money advanced, interest, insurance, transportation, labor,
weighingcooperingandotherchargesandexpensesinrelationtosuchgoods;alsoforall
reasonablechargesandexpensesfornotice,andadvertisementofsale,andforsaleofthe
goodswheredefaulthasbeenmadeinsatisfyingthewarehousemanslien.
Sec.31.Warehousemanneednotdeliveruntillienissatisfied.Awarehousemanhavinga
lienvalidagainstthepersondemandingthegoodsmayrefusetodeliverthegoodstohim
untilthelienissatisfied.
Also, according to the pertinent stipulation in the subject quedans which provides for
Noahs Arks right to impose and collect warehousemans lien:
Storage of the refined sugar quantities mentioned herein shall be free up to one (1) week
from the date of the quedans covering said sugar and thereafter, storage fees shall be
charged in accordance with the Refining Contract under which the refined sugar covered
by this Quedan was produced.
As contracts, the receipts must be respected by authority of Article 1159 of the Civil Code,
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties
and should be complied with in good faith.
Petitioner is in estoppel in disclaiming liability for the payment of storage fees due the
private respondents as warehouseman while claiming to be entitled to the sugar stocks
covered by the subject Warehouse Receipts on the basis of which it anchors its claim for
payment or delivery of the sugar stocks.
The unconditional presentment of the receipts by the petitioner for payment carried with it
the admission of the existence and validity of the terms, conditions and stipulations written
on the face of the Warehouse Receipts, including the unqualified recognition of the
payment of warehousemans lien for storage fees and preservation expenses.
Delivery to it shall be effected only upon payment of the storage fees because in
accordance with Sec. 29 of the said law, the warehouseman loses his lien upon goods by
surrendering possession thereof. In other words, the lien may be lost where the
warehouseman surrenders the possession of the goods without requiring payment of his
lien, because a warehousemans lien is possessory in nature.

Petition denied for lack of merit.